Sit-ins taught businessmen that racial progressivism hurt their profits

Evidence

But the sit-ins undercut such arguments, as merchants who once accepted the idea that racial progressivism and economic progress went hand-in-hand instead came to believe that the civil rights movement might cost them on several fronts. For one, the sit-ins threatened their public prestige. Under the auspices of the moderate coalition, these businessmen had adopted a paternalistic attitude that simultaneously stressed their own contributions to the “betterment” of black Atlanta and sharply contrasted their own stance with that of strident segregationists. To their shock, the student activists challenged both claims, arguing that the business community’s past accomplishments were insignificant and that their current discriminatory policies made them no better than the more rabid racists. While such arguments made merchants uncomfortable, the practical costs of the protests alarmed them even more. The sit-ins distracted their employees, scared away their customers, created bad publicity, and, in general, choked off their profits. On a more fundamental level, these businessmen took offense at the ways in which the sit-ins challenged key assumptions of their world—the supremacy of the free enterprise system, the right to private property, and the identity and autonomy that they, as businessmen, had under both. — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight, 416

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Sit-ins finally made class privilege fail to shield white elites from civil rights costs — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 461; Business elites backed racial moderation primarily to protect profits — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 88